Ninth Circuit Court Dodges Judicial Recusal Issue ...... Ignores Supreme Court Precedent In Richard Fine Case

Los Angeles, CA In an unexpected turn of events, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted an Order denying Richard I. Fine’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Order Trial Court (U.S. California Central District) to Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or Issue Order to Show Cause. This action, posted on the Federal Pacer website, did not have any Judicial signatures or names of Judicial officers who authorized such action.

Full Disclosure Network immediately contacted the Executive Office of the Ninth Circuit Court, requesting verification that the unsigned Order was valid. Here is the explanation we received from David Madden , Assistant Circuit Executive in San Francisco...........

"Once a case has been calendared, all subsequent petitions, motions, etc. go to the appellate panel which has been assigned the case. This case was ordered to be submitted on the briefs, without oral argument on December10, 2009, in Pasadena, California. It has been assigned to a panel of judges and it was the panel that denied the emergency petition brought by Mr. Fine."

"Names of judges sitting on a panel are not revealed until 10 days prior to the case being heard or submitted on the briefs. Should a panel need to issue an order in a case more than 10 days prior to a hearing/submission,the order is issued "for the court" by the clerk of court or designee. This process is followed fairly often"

From his L. A. County Central Men’s jail cell, where he has been held for almost nine months in solitary “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of Court, Richard I Fine gave Full Disclosure his reaction to this development.........

“This action of a panel is unheard of. It violates due process because it is allowing Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter to judge their own actions of denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This is a direct violation of the United States Supreme Court case of In re Murchison and hundreds of years of common law which hold that no man can judge his own actions. The Ninth Circuit is bound to follow the Supreme Court, they do not have a choice in the matter."

VIOLATES LAW REGARDING FIVE-DAY LAW ON COERCIVE CONFINEMENT
He went on to say "It also violates California law as set forth in the case of In re Farr. This case prohibits holding a person for more than five days in “coercive confinement” for contempt of court if there is no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve it’s coercive purpose"... and

IGNORES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

"It further shows that the Ninth Circuit may be biased against me in this case, as it is willing to violate the law and Supreme Court decisions to protect wrong doing judges. It is this type of action which supports the necessity of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Judicial Recusals."

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON JUDICIAL RECUSALS NEEDED
Fine concluded saying, "We definitely need new laws to stop this type of illegal conduct by Magistrate Judge Woehrle, Judge Walter and the Ninth Circuit as they refuse to follow clear Supreme Court Precedent ."

RELATED LINKS TO VIDEOS AND RELEASES ON THIS CASE

Two US Judges Refuse to Recuse From Case Naming Them As Defendants: (Video 9 min)

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a short video news blog report on what has been described by the volunteer legal team helping Richard I. Fine as a “bombshell cover-up” by two Federal Judges, Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter denied Fine's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Case 09-cv-7943) where they themselves were named as defendants.

The case of jailed Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine a prominent attorney who holds a PhD in International law has generated a protracted legal battle playing out in the U.S. Central District Court of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals all the while Fine has been held in solitary coercive confinement in the L.A. County Central Men’s jail since March 4, 2009.

Fine was sentenced for an indefinite period of time, without bail, hearing date or release date, for civil contempt of court after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on the grounds that he had taken illegal payments from a party to the case.

In his new Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the U.S. District Court Mr. Fine cites on page 12 that the 5 day limit to hold him for “coercive incarceration” as having been violated by the L. A. Superior Court and the L A County Sheriff.

Also on page 12 the petition cites that 28 USC Section 2243 as having been violated by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F, Walter. Magistrate Judge signed an order to strike the filing of the Writ, even though she was named as a defendant and Judge Walter signed both a judgment and denial even though he was named as a defendant.

Fine also filed an emergency writ of mandate in the Ninth Circuit Court of appeal to order the District Court to issue the writ.

Appearing in the video are:

• Mardi Mason, (By Telephone) Former Richard Fine law office manager and Para-Legal
• Fred Sottile, Volunteer for Richard Fine
• Leslie Dutton, Moderator, Full Disclosure Network
  
  
  Other Related Documents:
• Letter To Panel Justices Re: Judicial Recusal Hearings to be held in Congress
• Request for Judicial Notice: Recusal by all judges of CA 2nd District Appeals Ct.
• Docket of case 09-cv-7943 sequence of dates posting various orders,
• Referral of Recusal Motion to U S Judge George King
  
  
  
  

Richard I Fine Appeal Rights Restored by Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld

Los Angeles CA Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Jay Kleinfeld has issued an Order restoring Richard I. Fine's right to appeal that was previously denied with prejudice, by the lower District Court. At issue was the Civil Contempt of Court Judgment Order signed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009 remanding Fine to the custody of the L. A. County Sheriff for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without a release date or a hearing date.

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED?
Judge Kleinfeld's Order states: "Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U>S> 322 (2003), appellant need not show that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A Certificate of appealability is required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims "debatable." (Id. at 338.) ...........

• "Accordingly, appellant is granted a certificate of appealability in the issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself. See28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); see also 9th Cir.R.22-1(e)"
  

DENIED RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGES:

Ironically, Fine had previously filed motions to recuse both Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle due to conflicts outlined in his recusal motions where he maintains the judges should not have considered his his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release due to conflicts. Both recusal motions were denied by U.S. District Judge George H. King.

ILLEGAL COURT PROCEDURES QUESTIONED

Fine has been in solitary coercive confinement for five and half months based on Judge Yaffe's judgment Order. At the time of sentencing, Richard Fine raised the issue with Judge Yaffe that his sentence would be held illegal. In his Emergency Request for Release, Fine describes the conditions and circumstances of what he believes are unlawful actions by the District Court.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPEAL SET:

Judge Kleinfeld's Order further states that once the appellant provides payment for filing and docketing fees, within 14 days, the following briefing schedule shall apply. The opening brief is due September 9, 2009, the answering brief is due October 9, and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

PERFECTED APPEAL WITH FILING FEES:

In a telephone interview with Mr. Fine from his jail cell today Full Disclosure learned that the required filing and docketing fees have been submitted to the U. S. Court and proof of payment is to be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court along with a motion for reconsideration of his Emergency request for immediate release.

For Updates on this case Subscribe to the RSS Feed on this page.